The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-03-08

C1e ueaUn OF DISABILITY, which may De
. caused wholly or in part, by bodily in
frmities or disease" The words
BODILY infrmities or disease" do not
include insanity. Upon the question
raised as to the effect of the leading
sentence of the policy insuring Gran
dali against bodily injuries effected
through external accidental and violent
means, the court holds that this sentence
does not speak of what the injury is
caused by, but looks only to the means
by WHICH ii was effected. No one doubt 8
that Hanging is violent means #
death; as it effects the body from with
out, IL is external, and according to de-
cisions as to suicide under policies of
1 life insurance, it cannot. when done by
an insane person, be held to be other
than accidental: The judgment of the
circuit court IN favor of the plaintiff
was correct and is affirmed.
No. 1874, Thomas Baldwin, plaintiff in
error, against ]. @. Franks, United
States Marshal, in error to the new Cir
cult Court of the United States for the
District of Columbia. This case pre-
sents another phase of the Chinese
Equestion, and inYokes the rights of the
Chinese under the Federal law. On the
18th of February, 1886, Baldwin, plain
| I'LL III C1IOl, duu OIACI ClllLCUS Al GUG
mining town Nicolas, Suffer County,
California, drove out of that town, with
| force, a number of resideHt Chinese,
placing them on board steamboat
barge plying on Feather River, AID
sending tEemout of the limits of the town
and county. Baldwin was arrested
under a warrant issued by the com
mission of the Circuit Court, charging
him with entering into a conspiracy
with certain -Other persons to deprive
these Chinese of equal pro s3tion of the
laws and equal privileges and immu-
mites under the laws. Baldwin applied
to the circuit court fer discharge on
bdbeds corpus, but it was refused and he
now appeals to this court on the ground
that the charge made against him is not
sufficient to justify his detention. The
| judges in the circuit court were divided
in opinion as to the following questions:
First-Whether the conspiracy which
resulted in the expulsion of the Chinese
from Nicolas in the manner set forth in
the record. is an offense in violation of
section 5,5l9 of the United States stat
utes, and if so, whether that section, as
applied to such state of facts, is consti-
| tutiOnal.
Second-Whether the acts charged
dSdluSb GdluWln 6hO LIS iCiIOm COL-
spirators constitute an offense within
| the meaning of section 5,508 Revised
Statutes, and, if so, whether that Sec
ton is constitutional.
Third-W neither such acts so per
| formed coDstitu an otfense within the
| meaning of that clause of Section 1896,
Revised Statutes, which makes it an
| offense for persons to cOnspire by force
to prevent, hinder or delay the execG-
ton of any law of the United States,
and if so, whether that section is con-
stitutional.
This court, in a long and elaborate
opinion by Chief Justice Waite, holds
that the United States undoubtedly
have power to provide for the punish
ment of those who are guilty of de-
priving Chinese subjects of any rights,
privileges, immunities or exemptions
guaranteed to them by the treaty;
whether that power has been exercised
or not, must be ascertained by an
examination OF the statutes upon which
55O3, and 5336. Section 5519, which was
the one most considered in the court
below, provides for the punishment of
those who, in any State or
Territory, conspire for the pur-
pose of depriving, either directly
or indirectly, any person, or class OF
persons, of the equal protection OF the
laws, or of equal privileges, and immu-
mites under the laws. In U. s. VS..
Harris COG U. S. 629), it was decided
that this section was unconstitutional
as provision for the punishment OF
conspiracies of this character
therein mentioned in the State.
1t is urged that this section,
although unconstitutional as applied
to the fact set forth in the Harris case,
is not so when applied to the facts in
this case, because the persons cOnspired
against in the former instance were
citizens, while they we're aliens entitled
to protection under the United States
treaty. In support of this argument
reliance is had in the well-settled rule
that the statute may be in part con-
stitutional and part unconstitutional,
and that under some circumstances
the part which is constitutional will be
enforced and only that which is un-
to this rule, however, part OF
that which is constitutional and
the part of that which is
unconstitutional must be capable of
separation, so that each may be placed
by itself. This statute is not of that
character, and the limitation must BE-
made, if at all, by construction-not by
separation. This has been decided not
enough. It is clear, in the opinion of
the court, that Section 5519 cannot be
sustained, in whole or ia part, in its
operation within the State, unless the
United States VS.. Harris is oyerruled,
ond tets court sees no reason for so
doing. AS for Section 500, it was held
to be constitutional in ex parte Var
brough (11O United States 651) ana the
only question to be deciced is whether
what is charged to have been done
by Baldwin constitutes an offense
with the meaning of the provision.
In the opinion of the court, the word
"citizen'' as used in this statute,
must be given the same meaning it has
in the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution, and that constitutes the
offense which is there provided for. The
wrong must be done to one who is the
citizen in that sense. It.. Therefore
does not apply to Chinese aliens. With
regard to Baldwin's liability under
section 1895, the court holds that the
force used by him was against the
Chinese people and not against the